AN EXAMINATION OF TRIPLE TRADITION MATERIAL WITH MATTHEW ; MARK ; AND LUKE AS A CASE STUDY. A Paper.

Transcript

1 AN EXAMINATION OF TRIPLE TRADITION MATERIAL WITH MATTHEW ; MARK ; AND LUKE AS A CASE STUDY. A Paper Presented to Dr. James De Young Western Seminary In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Course NTS680, The Synoptic Problem By Brian LePort September 17, 2011

2 Introduction Mark Goodacre defines Triple Tradition material as occasions when a pericope is in all three Synoptics. 1 Many of the pericopes are sayings materials. 2 Most often, There is substantial agreement between all three Synoptics, some agreement between Matthew and Mark against Luke, some agreement between Mark and Luke against Matthew, but less agreement between Matthew and Luke against Mark. 3 Other features include similar wording, arrangement of material (usually along Mark s order), Matthew and Luke usually have the same order, and finally, if one examined only Triple Tradition material one would have something closely resembling a complete Gospel, and this Gospel would look similar to Mark. 4 E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davis add about 90% of Mark is also found in Matthew and more than 50% also in Luke. 5 This leads most scholars to postulate that Mark was either the first or the third Gospel to be written. If it was first Matthew and Luke using Mark can explain the similarities. If it was third the similarities can be explained by Mark having both Matthew and Luke then condensing their messages into a shorter one. Sanders and Davis further note, In pericopes which are in common, verbatim agreement varies, but the average is around 50%. So the wording is often very close, likely indicating a shared written source. Also, Matthew and Luke are in agreement whenever they align with Mark. For example, the first time Matthew and Luke show 1 Goodacre, Mark. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. New York, NY: T&T Clark Int., Ibid Ibid Ibid Sanders, E.P and Margaret Davis. Studying the Synoptic Problem. Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International,

3 agreement is wording and order is when they both come to the story of John the Baptist. 6 This is another reason why most think Matthew and Luke use Mark and a minority argues that Mark reduced Matthew and Luke. Either way Mark is the Gospel most similar to the other two. The Baptism of Christ as a Case Study In this paper we will exegete and juxtapose the story of the baptism of Christ as it appears in Matthew ; Mark ; and Luke Obviously, these three pericopes qualify since they are the same story in all three Synoptic Gospels. There will be some sayings material for us to examine, but mostly these pericopes describe actions. Nevertheless, we will ask if the wording is similar or not. Also, we will ask if the similarities tend to show more agreement between Matthew and Mark over against Luke, or Mark and Luke over against Matthew, or if this set is different than the others. In the Markan version the introduction includes the preaching of John the Baptist. It then transitions from there into our pericope. Mark describes Jesus as coming from Nazareth of Galilee and says he was baptized in the Jordan unto John (1.9). This is followed by his characteristic εὐθὺς (a common literary motif translated immediately in Mark s Gospel that functions to move the reader along swiftly) which transitions Jesus out of the water into the scene where the heavens part, the Spirit descends like (ὡς) a dove, and a voice comes from heaven saying, You are my beloved Son, in you I am pleased. Mark then transitions into the story of Christ s temptation. In the Matthean version we expand from fifty-three words in Mark to ninety-five words. Like Mark, Matthew transitions from the preaching of John the Baptist, but the 6 Ibid

4 story is further from the beginning of the Gospel. Matthew has already provided a genealogy (1.1-17); a birth narrative ( ); a story of a visit from some wise men (2.1-12); a story of a flight to Egypt ( ); a story of infants being slayed under Herod s orders ( ); and the return of Jesus family from Egypt after Herod s death ( ). Like Mark, Matthew has Jesus coming from Galilee in 3.13 (he already placed Jesus in Nazareth in 2.23, though he spent much more time explaining how Jesus got there than does Mark). Where Matthew differs from Mark (and from Luke) is that in 14-15a Matthew provides a long apologetic from the mouth of John where John says that he should be baptized by Jesus and then he has Jesus explain why he needs to be baptized: to fulfill all righteousness (πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην). Only when Jesus has reasoned with John does John permit Jesus to be baptized. After this Matthew returns to Mark s order even noting that Jesus came out of the water immediately (εὐθὺς), that the heavens opened, that the Spirit came just like (ὡσεὶ, which is arguably a bit stronger than ὡς) a dove, and a voice speaks from heaven confirming Jesus to be my beloved Son, in whim I am pleased. Matthew s tweak on the saying is that Mark makes it sound like the voice addresses Jesus directly, while Matthew has the voice making a public announcement to everyone present. Matthew transitions to the story of the wilderness temptation as well. When Luke tells the story it is closer to Mark s telling. He brings the story back down to forty-three words, which is even shorter than Mark. Luke transitions from the preaching of John the Baptist just like the other two, but he interrupts his story with a genealogy in prior to resuming the Markan order in 4.1. Unlike Matthew s Gospel the genealogy seems to be a bit out of place, like he almost forgot to include it so 3

5 he slipped it in here. In 3.21 he has Jesus going to get baptized with many others. He does not seem to stand out like he does in Matthew s Gospel. Luke adds a few different details like having Jesus praying when the heaven opens, or using the adjective ἅγιον to describe the Spirit, or taking Mark and Matthew s metaphor of the Spirit as a dove and saying that it was in bodily form (σωματικῷ εἴδει), which add a physicality to it. Like Mark the voice directly addresses Jesus rather than speaking about him in the third person. When we examine these pericopes we realize that all three follow the Markan order (or the Matthean order if one argues for Matthean priority). We have two Gospels agreeing with each other as Goodacre, Sanders, and Davis suggested. As they suggested one agrees with Mark against the other in that Mark and Luke exclude Matthew s apologia for Jesus baptism by John. What about verbatim agreement (see the chart below for a visual of the following)? Let us examine where the other two agree with Mark or if there is every a case when Matthew and Luke agree verbatim without Mark. Both Mark in 1.10 and Luke in 3.22 write ὡς περιστερὰν to describe the Spirit s descent. That is the only example of the narrators saying the exact same wording about an action. The one saying that is exactly the same is, Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα. They agree against Matthew who has the voice address the crowd about Jesus in the third person saying, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα. Mark and Matthew come very close to saying the same thing about Jesus enter when Mark writes in 1.9, Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας and Matthew writes 4

6 in 3.13, Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας. It may be important that Matthew seems to use εὐθὺς in 3.16 like Mark does in 1.10, but the rest of the description differs in word order, tenses, and so forth. Overall there are close similarities between all three. Whenever one agrees with another it is Matthew or Luke with Mark. In these pericopes there is never an instance when Matthew and Luke agree over against Mark. This fits quite well with what we should expect from pericopes in the Triple Tradition. What about the debate over Markan and Matthean priority? We should note that the contribution of these pericopes would be the extra details in Matthew where John is apologetic about baptizing Jesus. If Mark is earlier then Mark seems unaware of the degree of tension caused by disputes between the disciples of John and Jesus. Matthew, writing later, addresses a situation that is growing increasingly intense. If Matthew was first then Mark seems to think that Matthew s apologetic is irrelevant to the story. This should signify that the debates between the disciples of Jesus and John had calmed. Two passages should cause us to lean toward Markan priority as regards these pericopes. First, in Acts the author tells a story about Paul traveling in Ephesus. He meets disciples of John there and he tells them of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Paul converts these disciples because Jesus has given the Spirit while John baptized to repentance alone. There is much we could say about this passage but for now it will suffice to point out that (1) Acts is written later than all three of Synoptics and it portrays a continued need either for the conversion of some of John s disciples or (2) maybe even an apologetic against those who maintain loyalty to John at the time of the writing of this book. 5

7 Another passage of interest is John This is part of the last Gospel, yet the author still feels obligated to explain who Jesus is and who John is not. It seems that the tensions between Jesus disciples and those who refused to cease being loyal to John continued into the late first century. If this is so, then it makes more sense that Mark does not provide an apologetic because the concern was not as great as it was by the time of the composition of Matthew s Gospel. When we ask why Luke follows Mark by not noting the tension there are two simple response: (1) Luke is trying to stick closer to Mark s order and language so he doesn t address the concern here and (2) he is the author of Acts and makes it apparent that he knows of the problem and he addresses it in his second volume. Summary and Conclusion In this paper we examined the Triple Tradition through the lens of the story of Jesus baptism. These smaller pericopes allowed us to ask whether the common assumptions about the Triple Tradition are true. Finally, we used this case study to briefly address whether it contributes to the debate over Matthean or Markan priority concluding that along with other pieces of data it suggests Markan priority. 6

8 MATTHEW Τότε παραγίνεται ὁ MARK Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν LUKE Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τῆς Γαλιλαίας ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰορδάνην πρὸς τὸν Ἰωάννην τοῦ βαπτισθῆναι ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ. 14 ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης διεκώλυεν αὐτὸν λέγων Ἐγὼ χρείαν ἔχω ὑπὸ σοῦ βαπτισθῆναι, καὶ σὺ ἔρχῃ πρός με; 15 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν Ἄφες ἄρτι, οὕτως γὰρ πρέπον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην. τότε ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου. 10 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος εἶδεν σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς περιστερὰν καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν 11 καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός βαπτισθῆναι ἅπαντα τὸν λαὸν καὶ Ἰησοῦ βαπτισθέντος καὶ προσευχομένου ἀνεῳχθῆναι τὸν οὐρανὸν 22 καὶ καταβῆναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον σωματικῷ εἴδει ὡς περιστερὰν ἐπʼ αὐτόν, καὶ φωνὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γενέσθαι Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα. 9 9 Holmes, M. W. (2010; 2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Lk 3:21 22). Logos Bible Software. 7

9 ἀφίησιν αὐτόν. 16 βαπτισθεὶς δὲ ὁ μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα. 8 Ἰησοῦς εὐθὺς ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἰδοὺ ἠνεῴχθησαν οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ εἶδεν πνεῦμα θεοῦ καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν ἐρχόμενον ἐπʼ αὐτόν 17 καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν λέγουσα Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα. 7 7 Holmes, M. W. (2010; 2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Mt 3:13 17). Logos Bible Software. 8 Holmes, M. W. (2010; 2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Mk 1:9 11). Logos Bible Software. 8

10 Bibliography Goodacre, Mark. The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze. New York, NY: T&T Clark Int., Holmes, M. W. (2010; 2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Logos Bible Software. Sanders, E.P and Margaret Davis. Studying the Synoptic Problem. Philadelphia, PA: Trinity Press International, 1989.